H.R. 1526: Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.

This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/113/1/hr1526.

Background

In 1908, the Forest Service (FS) began paying 25% of its gross receipts[1] to states to be used by counties containing national forest land.[2]  The arrangement was established to compensate counties for the tax-exempt status of the national forest lands, which caused the counties to generate substantially lower tax revenues.  Under the receipt-sharing program, states allocate the funds to counties based on the amount of national forest land in each, and the funds are used for qualified road and school programs.[3]

“Congress has also enacted numerous programs to share receipts from [Bureau of Land Management] lands for various types of resource use and from various classes of land, but one program—the Oregon and California (O&C) payments—accounts for the vast majority (more than 95%) of BLM receipt-sharing[4]. . . .  The O&C counties receive 50% of the receipts from these lands.  These mandatory payments go directly to the counties for any local governmental purposes.  Concerns about, and proposals to alter, FS receipt-sharing payments also typically include the O&C payments, because both are substantial payments derived largely from timber receipts.”[5]

“Timber harvests in our National Forests are down 80% over the last 30 years,” resulting in a substantial decline in FS and O&C receipts.[6]  The decline in receipts led Congress to create the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in 2000, offsetting the severe reduction in funding experienced by counties with FS lands.[7]  Under SRS, states could opt to receive a payment in lieu of the customary 25% receipt-sharing payment.  “Payments under SRS are substantial, and significantly greater than the receipt-sharing payments would be.”[8]  Because the SRS payments program is not sustainable, H.R. 1526 would provide a long term solution by extending the SRS payments program for one year, while simultaneously requiring an increase in timber production on FS commercial timber lands.  This will result in a stable revenue stream, enabling counties to transition back to the 25 % receipt-sharing arrangement.

“Last year, wildfires burned 9.3 million acres, while the U.S. Forest Service only harvested approximately 200,000 acres.  This means that 44 times as many acres burned as were responsibility harvested.”[9]  H.R. 1526 addresses the lack of commonsense management, in part, by allowing greater state and local involvement in wildfire prevention on federal lands.[10]

The bill also allows communities to actively manage portions of National Forest land through the creation of “Community Forest Demonstration Areas,” as they have proven more successful in increasing harvest and revenue from smaller land bases than the Federal government.  “For example: Washington state is able to harvest 7 times as much timber and generate 200 times the revenue on ¼th  the land area as the Forest Service.”[11]  Though “[t]he Forest Service once averaged over $1 billion in revenues annually . . . . It now spends $2 for every $1 it produces.”[12]

By reestablishing the priority of actively managing our forests and promoting responsible timber production on FS commercial timber lands, H.R. 1526 would create over 68,000 direct jobs and nearly 140,000 indirect jobs.[13]

Summary

H.R. 1526 requires increased timber production on commercial national forest land, reestablishing the Federal government’s commitment to actively managing Federal forests for the benefit of rural schools and counties.  The bill also improves forest health to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improves forest management by allowing counties to actively participate.

According to a title-by-title summary provided by the Committee on Natural Resources, the bill does the following:

Title I: “Requires the Forest Service to [harvest] at least half of the sustainable annual yield of timber each year and, as required by law since 1908, share 25 percent of receipts with the counties; protects the environment by requiring projects to complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations, while streamlining the process to avoid frivolous and lengthy delays, lawsuits, and bureaucratic red tape; and provides an extension of Secure Rural School payments to allow counties to transition back to payments from active forest management.”

Title II: “Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement hazardous fuels reduction and forest health projects on at-risk lands and high-risk areas designated by the Governor of a state.  It also allows states to propose forest health projects to the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management for implementation.”

Title III: “Establish[es] a Board of Trustees to manage a majority of the [Oregon and California (O&C)] Lands under the Oregon Forest Practice Act and distribute revenues from timber harvest to the O&C Counties.  The remaining O&C Lands would be transferred to the Forest Service and managed under the Northwest Forest Plan.”

Title IV: “[I]mprove[s] local forest management by allowing counties to actively manage portions of National Forest land through the creation of ‘Community Forest Demonstration Areas.’ . . .  The bill would allow a total of two million acres nationwide to be enrolled as Community Forest Demonstration Areas.  The area would be managed by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Governor of the state.”

Title V: “[A]llows a short-term extension of [Secure Rural Schools] payments to provide funding to counties as the Forest Service (or counties under title III & IV) transitions back to active management.  It also extends and expands two popular forest management authorities currently in use by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management – Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting.”[1]

Cost

According to CBO estimates, enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending in 2014.  It would reduce direct spending by $10 million over the 2014-2018 period, and by $383 million over the 2014-2023 period.  

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.